Making concessions on benefit cuts 'not enough', says Scots Labour MP
Brian Leishman said "the real Labour thing to do" is "to create a welfare system that looks after people".
Concessions on the UK Government's benefit cuts are "not enough" and the bill should be dropped, a Scottish Labour MP has said.
Brian Leishman said "the real Labour thing to do" is "to create a welfare system that looks after people".
It comes as reports suggested Prime Minister Keir Starmer is considering watering down his welfare reforms because of a major rebellion.
This could include changing the points needed to get Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or backtracking on the measures affecting Universal Credit (UC).
amendment which would bring down the cuts it goes to a vote on Tuesday.
Alloa and Grangemouth MP Leishman said: "Concessions being made on the UC and PIP Bill is not enough because disabled people will still become poorer.
"The government should withdraw the Bill and work with organisations and charities to create a welfare system that looks after people.
" That's the real Labour thing to do."
The bill would make it harder for disabled people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payment (Pip), with forecasts predicting the overall changes will plunge 50,000 children into poverty.
The amendment supported by the rebels would give them an opportunity to reject the welfare reform bill.
The wording backs the 'need for the reform of the social security system' but criticises the lack of a 'formal consultation' with disabled people and warns of the impact on poverty levels.
They also hit out at their own Government for not publishing an 'assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs'.
The Scottish Labour sceptics are Richard Baker, Scott Arthur, Euan Stainbank, Brian Leishman, Lilian Jones, Tracy Gilbert, Elaine Stewart, Kirsteen Sullivan and Ferguson. Maureen Burke, Martin Rhodes and Irene Campbell have since added their names.
The Record understands there are other MPs who have not signed the amendment who may not back the cuts in a vote next week.
There are 11 Scottish MPs in the UK Government - plus two other MPs who are 'mission champions' - who would almost definitely have to resign from their roles to rebel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain has just spent £1bn on new F-35s. Were we right to do so?
For a Labour government keen to showcase its defence credentials to the world – and particularly Donald Trump – it was the perfect party piece. Ahead of this week's Nato summit in the Hague, Sir Keir Starmer announced the purchase of 12 new F-35A fighter jets, ordered from the United States at a cost of nearly £1 billion. Armed with state-of-the art technology and radar jammers, the so-called 'flying computer' can operate almost invisible to enemy eyes: as its maker Lockheed Martin boasts, 'it is built to conduct missions others can't'. More importantly, it can carry bombs that others can't. The F-35A will enable Britain to carry US B61s – tactical nuclear weapons that could be deployed on a battlefield in the event of a war with Russia. The idea is to widen Britain's range of nuclear response options, which currently rest only in the much bigger strategic missiles carried on its Trident submarine fleet. In nuclear weapons terms, that is the difference between a scalpel and a sledgehammer – and while the purchase has horrified disarmament campaigners, Sir Keir insists it is a necessary evil. 'In an era of radical uncertainty, we can no longer take peace for granted,' he declared. What has also not been taken for granted, however, is the F-35's complete reliability. For despite being billed as America's foremost combat jet, critics say it has suffered more than its fair share of glitches during its 19-year flying history. In 2019, the military magazine Defense News revealed that Pentagon chiefs had identified precisely 857 'deficiencies' in the aircraft's design, including seven that were potentially 'critical'. Most have since been dealt with, but to this day the F-35 programme remains dogged by technical hitches and concerns about reliability and maintenance. Britain has been a major customer of the F-35s, and already owns 48 F-35Bs – a variation on the F-35A that also has vertical take-off and landing capabilities, making it suitable for use on aircraft carriers. Worldwide, however, at least a dozen F-35s have been involved in accidents or serious technical failures since 2018. Sometimes the cause has been malfunctioning headsets or software failures; on other occasions pilots have simply struggled with the complex technology. In January, an F-35A fighter jet crashed during a training session at an Air Force base in Alaska after an in-flight malfunction, forcing the pilot to eject. Three years ago, a South Korean Air Force F-35A made a belly landing after a bird strike and a landing gear malfunction. Just this week, it was revealed that a British F-35B serving with an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean has been stranded on the Indian mainland for more than 10 days after monsoon rains forced it to make an emergency landing. A technical issue with the craft was reportedly identified after it landed, and a British Merlin helicopter from the aircraft carrier flew technicians in to try to fix the suspected hydraulic failure. But like a fancy sports car that can only be repaired by authorised dealers, the F-35 was deemed in need of a team of specialists from the UK. Meanwhile, Royal Navy chiefs are said to have turned down an offer by the Indians to move the jet out of the rain and into a hangar, for fear they might take a sneaky peak at its sensitive technologies. Problems with software updates have meant that hundreds of the planes have at times lain in hangars in the US, hindering ongoing roll-out programmes to Europe's other Nato players. Like much high-tech Pentagon equipment – especially anything nuclear-capable – the US military is cagey about the exact nature of the issues. But outsiders have not been shy in airing criticisms, among them aviation expert Bill Sweetman, a Hampshire-born former editor for Janes (a global open-source intelligence company), who now lives in the US. While Lockheed Martin hails its product as 'stealthy, speedy and the future of air dominance across the world,' Sweetman is rather less complimentary. In a book published last year, detailing the programme's problems and vast cost overruns, he famously dubbed the F-35 a ' trillion-dollar trainwreck '. Others – including a former acting defence secretary under Trump – have been equally damning, dismissing it as a 'rathole' and 'f----d up.' Sweetman paints a picture of a vast, outdated flight development programme, which began in the late 1990s when computer technology was far less developed than it is now, and has been playing catch-up ever since. As a result, he argues, the F-35 is rather like a clunky late-1990s laptop onto which lots of additional hard-drives and software have had to be awkwardly grafted. 'Operating a stealth aircraft [one designed to be invisible to radar] is always a unique challenge, in that you are also trying to minimise all the electronic signals that the plane might emit,' he says. 'But a big problem has been the design of the electronics, as how one did these things 25 years ago is very different to how they might be done today. By the late 2010s, for example, they were already running out of memory for the plane's computers, so they had to install first one new computer control system, and then another. That's very complicated and also affects the jet's avionics – how it flies. It might have been better to have had a design that kept the avionics separate from the control systems.' Lockheed Martin disputes that assessment, and compares the updates to 'how an iPhone receives a software update on a base operating system'. John Neilson, the firm's director of international media and corporate affairs, says: 'We continue to release iterations of software that will further enhance combat capabilities, operational effectiveness and readiness of the aircraft.' More than 1,000 F-35s have already been produced, several hundred of which are already in use by Nato allies or due for delivery in coming years. Sweetman believes that the programme, like many large-scale defence contracts, ended up being simply too big to abandon, and that 'every failed fix made matters worse'. Last year, members of the United States House Committee on Armed Services even argued for scaling back procurement of the planes until the problems were ironed out for good. The programme, however, is already seriously behind schedule, making matters even worse. 'They were all supposed to be delivered before 2030,' Sweetman says. 'Now that target is more like 2054.' Greg Bagwell, a retired air marshal and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, says the issues extend beyond 'teething problems'. 'The F-35 is a big and long programme, with some way yet still to go,' he says. 'And while you can excuse any teething problems… there are clearly issues.' Bagwell likens the F-35 to a thoroughbred racehorse or Formula One racing car, arguing that because of its high-performance capabilities, it was always likely to suffer occasional technical hiccups. 'But if you look at the total number of flying hours that have already been put in, the number of serious issues has been pretty low,' he adds. The plane was in action over Iran recently during the US-Israeli bombing raids, with no performance issues or combat losses. 'There is some truth to the criticisms of people like Bill Sweetman, but based on exercises and operations we've seen so far, the F-35 is well above anything else we have,' says Bagwell. Other defenders of the plane, which took part in its first combat missions against Isis in Iraq in 2019, agree that despite its problems, it is still currently peerless. Its 360-degree vision gives pilots unrivalled situational awareness, and it also has formidable electronic warfare capabilities that can overwhelm enemy air defences. As one writer put it in an article last year for the magazine European Security & Defence: 'If the task is to go and drop a pair of small precision-guided missiles through someone's roof, and return home safely – probably undetected, and certainly unmolested – then there is no better aircraft to achieve that than an F-35.' Defence analysts also point out that glitches are routine with any high-performance aircraft, and that most of the more serious ones with the F-35 – such as problems with cockpit pressure leading to pilots suffering sinus pain – have now been ironed out. The debate over the F-35s' effectiveness, however, comes amid a wider discussion about whether the military should continue investing in manned aircraft and ' Top Gun ' pilots at all. With drones now effectively dominating the battlefield in Ukraine, many wonder if the West would be better off focusing purely on unmanned planes, controlled in turn by AI technology. Among those who believe so is American entrepreneur Elon Musk, who made his feelings known on social media last year when posting a video of a drone swarm. 'Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35,' he said, adding: 'Crewed fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend the range of missiles or drop bombs. A reusable drone can do so without all the overhead of a human pilot.' Even Sweetman, however, points out that no drones currently have anything like the speed, range or weapons-carrying ability that a fighter jet has. And as the US bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities proved earlier this week, manned flights still have their uses. In an interview with The Telegraph last year, Paul Livingston, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin's UK arm, insisted the F-35's capabilities were still 'beyond anything else out there'. 'Before the F-35, if I was going to fly a mission into a peer nation's territory to strike against a well-protected target, I would need a minimum of 16 aircraft,' he said. 'You would have jamming aircraft – which, by the way, says, 'Hello, we're coming' – then you'd send in suppression of enemy air defence aircraft, because you'd have to kill the radars off, then you'd send fast strike aircraft in. 'I can now do that same mission with four F-35s and no support. And they don't need protection afterwards, because they can fight their way out.'
Belfast Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Home heating oil up in price in Northern Ireland for second week
But the rate of increase in the cost of the fuel, the predominant means of heating homes here, has slowed down. A ceasefire between Israel and Iran has been holding, with markets now hoping that the worst impact of the conflict on oil markets is now over. The Northern Ireland Consumer Council's weekly price check for the fuel showed the average price of 300 litres this week was £201.07, up nearly £13 on the week before. The price of 500 litres had gone up by around £22 to £315.15, while for 900 litres, the average price was up around £41 to an average of £551.75. However, the level of increase was much lower than the week before, when prices were up by nearly £30 for 500 litres and by £70 for 900 litres. In percentage terms, the price of 300 litres was up 7%, while for 500 litres, the price was up 7.6%. And for 900 litres, the price was up 8%. That's much slower than the previous week, when the cost of both 300 and 500 litres had risen by 18%, and 900 litres was up 16%. Last week's increase had been the first week-on-week rise in average prices since early January. Raymond Gormley, head of energy policy at the Consumer Council, said last week: 'As we import all our home heating oil, Northern Ireland is at the mercy of volatile global oil markets and the price that consumers pay is impacted by a complex range of factors which can result in price fluctuations. 'It is very difficult to predict if this is the start of home heating oil prices going up for as long as this escalation in the Middle East lasts or just if it is an initial spike due to the recent attacks on Iran.' Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer addressed the impact of the Iran-Israel conflict on UK energy prices at the annual conference of the British Chambers of Commerce on Thursday. He said: 'The impact of international affairs on us domestically has never been so direct as it is at the moment. So you saw an oil price rise, to take the other obvious example. 'In the three-plus years of the Ukraine conflict, energy prices have gone up considerably as a result of that conflict. "So we have to recognise that's why diplomacy matters on the global stage to try and de-escalate and resolve situations, which is what I've spent a lot of time doing. It's also why we need to insulate ourselves here as best we can.'
Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
PM in talks with Labour rebels over DWP benefit cuts
Keir Starmer confirmed today the Government is locked in talks with rebellious backbenchers over welfare reforms. Here The Mirror looks at the PM's immediate options Keir Starmer confirmed today the Government is locked in talks with rebellious backbenchers over welfare reforms. In a Commons update on Thursday, the PM also addressed the growing rebellion and hinted at possible concessions in the coming days. He said he and his team "want to get this right". The PM said benefits claimants "are failed every single day" by a "broken system". Mr Starmer told MPs: "On social security, I recognise there is a consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work and supported to work when they can. "At the moment, they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither.I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I. We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday." But with 126 Labour MPs signing an amendment that could torpedo the plan, the Government could face an embarrassing defeat if it goes ahead. Here The Mirror looks at the PM's immediate options. Press ahead with vote Keir Starmer could decide to press ahead with the vote even if concessions aren't reached. This would be perhaps the nuclear option. With over 120 Labour MPs now opposed to the plans, rebels have the numbers to wipe-out the government's majority and deliver a humiliating defeat. And it is likely there are many more backbenchers - possibly frontbenchers - who are opposed to the plans but have not said so publicly yet. A defeat on this scale - overturning the government's huge majority - would leave the government's welfare plans in tatters. It would also leave the Chancellor Rachel Reeves with a £5billion black hole in her plans. Concessions to rebels The most likely scenario is that Keir Starmer will thrash out concessions with rebels over the coming hours and days in an attempt to salvage the reforms. Under existing plans the eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will be restricted. This is where most of the £5billion savings are being made. The benefit is paid to people both in and out of work and helps with daily tasks due to a long-term physical or mental health condition. Eligibility is calculated using a points-based system, based on how difficult someone finds it to perform tasks like washing themselves and getting dressed. But from the end of 2026 people would need to score a minimum of four points in at least one daily activity to qualify under the plans. Needing help to get in or out of the shower, or supervision to use the toilet are measures that don't meet this threshold. There have been suggestions this could be tweaked so people would need to score three points instead to make the new system slightly more generous. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests this could increase eligibility by 190,000 - at a cost of £0.8 billion. But even in this scenario it is extremely unlikely to satisfy all the rebels. There is a bloc of rebels opposed to the principle of taking away disability and sickness benefits full stop and will still vote against the proposals. Delay the vote - or pull the reforms If no concessions are reached, Mr Starmer may feel he has no other option but to delay the vote on Tuesday. This would allow time to speak to rebels and reach a compromise over the summer months, before a vote after the summer recess. It would be a screeching U-turn and politically messy. Over the last 24 hours both Mr Starmer and the Deputy PM Angela Rayner have insisted the vote will go ahead - a line repeated by No10 and a series of ministers. But it would mean avoiding a Commons defeat on one of the government's flagship policies almost a year to the date Labour won a historic victory at the general election. And if the rebels are not won over, pulling the reforms completely could also be on the cards.
